myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Exxon in California
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
capetonian



Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 1004
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
Side note: When sailing Santa Barbara this spring, my board was covered in oil. A mess. I don't have that problem in Malibu.

Subsequently found out that this is natural seepage. The Chumash indians used this oil for their boats and waterproofing huts etcetera.

Hey Steve, I think it makes sense to produce that oil, but I seriously doubt it will have any impact on the seepage for thousands of years, if ever. Oil has been produced offshore Santa Barbara since 1958 with no visible difference on seepage. The oil reservoirs are located at 8,000 to 14,000 feet below the surface, and oil can take thousands of years to migrate to the surface, depending on the path of natural fissures it takes, which can also result in the oil seeping onto the surface hundreds of miles from the original reservoir.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 6575

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you are correct Phil, but I heard a discussion on the issue, which seemed compelling at the time. Their are lobbyists on both sides, and quite frankly I'm not sure that science is any longer science, if you know what I mean.

The fact that American Indians used the seeping oil for thousands of years is evidence that much or all of it is natural.

Everyone agrees that an oil spill on the California coast would be tragic and unacceptable. Unlike the Japanese nuclear disaster, we'd be slightly better off than they are though.

I really liked your electric car comparision in the other thread. Once again, I'm sure we all agree that it would be nice to power everything with solar panels. I have a friend who owns wind turbines in Tehachapi, and he says it's not all that eco friendly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
capetonian



Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 1004
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
I really liked your electric car comparision in the other thread. Once again, I'm sure we all agree that it would be nice to power everything with solar panels. I have a friend who owns wind turbines in Tehachapi, and he says it's not all that eco friendly.


Wind turbines are great if you are not a bird and don't live anywhere near the turbines so don't have your view blocked by them (any Kennedys on this thread?).

Despite my cynicism I fully support alternative energy as I believe a) the way global demand for energy is growing we will need every source of energy we can get apart from coal, and b) coal is really bad stuff from a pollution perspective, but we are going to need it for a really long time. Apart from wind and solar there are currently no commercial scale alternative energy sources that are close to achieving commerciality. Lots of niche technologies are being developed, but nothing with scale or close to fruition.

Maybe we should give all the Montecino residents a choice - we either drill for oil in their backyard, or we erect a thousand wind turbines 500 yards offshore their private beach. Twisted Evil I don't really care which one they choose, as long as they choose.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4431

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Capetonian, Thank you for your last few posts ref the carbon business and it's alternatives. They have been informative. Nice to see facts and opinions presented on the topic without invective.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 8385

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With all the money in Montecito, it's virtually impossible to do anything that they're against. The perfect example is the long delayed widening of the 101. As a result, local residents on the south coast pay a steep price when LA is on the move.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9516

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discovered an interesting source today, Steve LeVine, who blogs on the Foreign Policy magazine site. That organization seems to be relatively non-partisan, with critiques (not attacks) of Obama's foreign policy. Ricks, who wrote "Fiasco" about Iraq, and is well respected within the military establishment, writes for them. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/about_us

LeVine wrote "The Oil and the Glory", so has substantial expertise in the field without being paid by one of the carbon guys. This line in a book review caught my eye, and seemed appropriate for this title:

"Yergin spares Big Oil titnas such as former Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Officer Lee Raymond-in the 1990's probably the most disagreeable executive on the oil patch-...

Now that is the Exxon that I remember. If you want to see analysis of energy policy and what it means in foreign policy, from someone who knows the the oil industry but doesn't own Exxon stock, you might try his blog.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9516

PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The Times Editorial Board

Scientists at the giant multinational energy company then known as Exxon were aware as early as the 1970s that burning products made from oil would contribute to global warming and, eventually, raise sea levels and alter climates.

Investigative reports published in 2015 by The Times and Inside Climate News found that the company made internal calculations about how such changes would affect its business — recognizing, for instance, that the polar ice caps were shrinking and that the company’s operations in the Arctic could change dramatically as a result. But even as it privately schemed about how to handle the risks and benefits of climate change, the oil giant publicly argued that the science it knew to be right was actually murky. For years, Exxon financed projects aimed at undermining the growing scientific consensus about global warming, and continued to sell stock to investors without acknowledging either the dangers to the world of burning fossil fuels — or the threats that rising and more volatile seas posed to the company’s own offshore drilling operations and coastal installations, among other climate change-related business risks.

The gap between what Exxon officials knew to be true and what they said publicly suggests both hypocrisy and a lack of concern about the fate of the planet. But whether the company violated securities law in the process is another question. That is the subject of investigations by several state attorneys general, led by those in New York and Massachusetts, who have subpoenaed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. California has its own inquiry underway, though Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris has offered no details and her department officially has no comment “on a potential or ongoing investigation.” Separately, the federal Securities and Exchange Commission is also reviewing actions by Exxon Mobil, as the corporation has been known since a 1999 merger.

Exxon Mobil has responded to the state subpoenas, but it also is trying to persuade a federal judge in Texas to close down the Massachusetts investigation, accusing the state of trampling its 1st Amendment rights. Whether a federal judge in Texas would have authority to interfere in an ongoing state investigation in Massachusetts is the subject of yet more legal wrangling.

At the same time, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the oil-friendly chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, has demanded documents from the ongoing state investigations, including from Harris’ office — a troubling attempt by Congress to interfere in state-level criminal investigations. Smith’s committee also has sought documents from independent environmental groups that, using the campaign against the tobacco industry as a blueprint, are acting in concert to try to hold the oil industry responsible for climate change damages it knew its products were causing.

While New York and Massachusetts have been open about their investigation of Exxon (the Virgin Islands recently abandoned a similar effort, citing lack of resources), California has been quiet. Harris is not long for her job in Sacramento — she will replace Barbara Boxer in the U.S. Senate next week. Gov. Jerry Brown has nominated Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles) to succeed Harris, pending confirmation by the Legislature. Assuming that happens, Becerra should put the Exxon investigation near the top of his “to do” list.

If investigations by California and other states find no grounds to pursue charges, so be it. It’s clear in any case that Exxon Mobil’s behavior was at best devious and cynical. The oil giant was at the vanguard of understanding the perils inherent in burning fossil fuels, and could have been a leader in moving the world toward safer and more sustainable energy sources.

Exxon Mobil’s calculated manipulations cost the world an opportunity to attack global warming earlier than it did. If Exxon Mobil — and other oil companies — had acted more in the common interest rather than focusing on profit, the world might not be struggling today to ratchet back emissions and avoid catastrophic changes.

With President-elect Donald J. Trump’s nomination of Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Rex Tillerson as secretary of State, the company’s climate change-denying disinformation campaign demands as full and fast a public accounting as is possible.


All that, and 58,000 premature deaths in the US each year from successful anti-regulation efforts. How many deaths are too many? How much money is enough?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NP



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2219

PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Go figure, you're concerned about fetuses now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 2787

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2017 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac,

Some how, we are suppose to believe that Exxon has kept all of us in the dark about the down side of petroleum products, and that we haven't been able to address the problem because we have been denied the full story.

Just when do you think the issue first surfaced, you know, smog? I had burning lungs back in the 60's in LA, and we all knew the source, and California and the US did something about it. If Exxon had acknowledged that their products were at fault, do you think that would have changed anything?

Same thing with the tobacco industry. We knew that smoking had plenty of bad side effects back in the 50's and 60's. How much has changed since then other than a warning label on the packages, and it costing an arm and a leg to buy cigarettes? (yes and a lot less people are smoking) Whether tobacco companies, or petroleum companies acknowledge the negatives or not, it hasn't prevented science for studying the problems and acknowledging what we already knew.

You posted:
Quote:
Scientists at the giant multinational energy company then known as Exxon were aware as early as the 1970s that burning products made from oil would contribute to global warming and, eventually, raise sea levels and alter climates.

Investigative reports published in 2015 by The Times and Inside Climate News found that the company made internal calculations about how such changes would affect its business — recognizing, for instance, that the polar ice caps were shrinking and that the company’s operations in the Arctic could change dramatically as a result.


I find it hard to believe that Exxon was the first and only source theorizing that burning fossil fuels might contribute to global warming in the 70's, and it's their fault that the world hasn't addressed safer and more sustainable energy sources. It's just so much BS, in my opinion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4431

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To be fair to climate scientists, in the 1970s they were too busy lining up grant money and organizing conferences on the impending ice age, to worry about the flat earthers at a grubby oil company.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group